Has China Not Noticed what a Bully North Korea is?
No, I know they know. Like the incident a few years ago. "Don't pick on my little brother, that's only for me to do", China says. Pretty standard, I was the same with my little brother. "I'LL Kill him, but you don't say a word against him!" North Korea, like an irritating thorn in your side, that you can't reach, and that could kill you, under the right circumstances.
I know the Koreas had a civil war. In the end, they sadly split up, unlike what happened to the U.S. after our Civil War. I know they feel like a country separated. But really, might you not feel after a while, that you just don't want to be associated with, to be considered a part of, THAT other country? How embarrassing. You have to feel sorry for South Korea. Not to mention, the many reasons other than embarrassment at having such leaders, the situation of the North Korean people. It hurts, just knowing what they must endure. Even if some are deluded into believing in their so called, leader. More like a lead lemming, than Korean, from what I know of Koreans. They don't deserve their government. No one would.
I am sure they love their lost family members. But I think at some point I might like to change my name to something else. Maybe, the "Republic of I really hate North Korea's leaders"?
"I solemnly urge the authorities of North Korea ... to apologize immediately to the Republic of Korea (South Korea) and the international community," South Korean President Lee Myung-bak, recently said on TV about the sinking of the South Korean sub.
Perhaps that is better, that the South, keep its name, and simply have everyone refer to the bully in the north as, well, "the bully in the north" (note the lack of caps).
Or, "The Republic of The Great Asses" (that is if they really want caps). This of course, refers only to the leaders, the government, and of course, the military for following, "The Asses" or more specifically, "Our Beloved Ass" as I'm sure he would ask to be called in private.
I know this is a touchy case, considering posture, military configurations. No one needs an all out war with this country. But really you cannot let bullies, bully. You have to cut them off as soon as possible and not let them get entrenched. Oh, wait, we already did that. Hmmm...well....
I remember Kim Jong-il's father, what a nut case he was. When I heard his son was taking over, at first I thought, good, couldn't get any worse. But then I heard about his qualifications, his fearful attitude and his lack of wanting to seize power due to his own known incompetence. And I realized, oh great, now its not only a nut case in charge but a thoroughly incompetent one at that, trying to live up to his crazed father's image.
Wikipedia says of him: "[He] is the de facto leader of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (also known as North Korea); the official leader of the country is still his long-deceased father Kim Il-sung, the founder of North Korea. He is the Chairman of the National Defense Commission, General Secretary of the Workers' Party of Korea, the ruling party since 1948, and the Supreme Commander of the Korean People's Army, the fourth largest standing army in the world. Recently, North Korea's constitution has been amended and now implicitly refers to him as the "Supreme Leader". He is also referred to as the "Dear Leader" and the "Great Leader"."
Really? Seriously? People have to call him that with a straight face? One has to wonder, how many have been put to death, because of falling into fits of hysteria when calling him some of these things. Not to mention, actually putting together the actuality of his actions along with the titles, would be death by itself; death by hysterics.
Oh, and let me repeat that one comment: "...the official leader of the country is still his long-deceased father Kim Il-sung, the founder of North Korea."
Seriously? Really? That should be a warning sign right there. The real leader of "The Republic of The Great Ass(es)", IS A DEAD GUY! And a dead nutzo to boot. Sad.
Paraphrasing Mozart in "Amadeus", "When one hears such things, one can only say, Kim Jong-il!"
And, very ill, at that.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Artist, person, public figure, who's to judge?
The other day, I had an indirect conversation. I really have to stop doing that. It went kind of like this, cleaned up a bit for public consumption. In responding to a comment, I said:
"Speaking of flutes, one of my favorite stories about them, was from David Carradine, while in China, shooting Kill Bill. They were at an ancient Buddhist monastery where there was a very cool forest of bamboo. So he got some of it, and in the end, carved a new flute from one of the shafts. Also, he played his, "silent flute", used in the Circle of Iron film, and also one from the Kung Fu series, in the Kill Bill movies.
Their reply was:
"...are we going to also be reminded of the closet incident. Or that just breaks the mood?. I don't see too much spiritualism to be gleaned from this. Turned out to be a sad sack. Very sorry to say."
This response to my rather innocent comment actually made my kind of sad. My only point in bringing it up was in reference to the FLUTE and nothing to do with Dave, and mostly about being able to get bamboo from a forest that was next to a special ancient Buddhist Monastery in China. I mean, how cool would that be? Somehow, I think the intent fell (and the spiritual part) on deaf ears.
And so my reply was:
"Well, its not a big deal either way. I decided years ago though, as a kid, to separate an artist from their personal life. It has to be pretty extreme for me to discount what someone has done in life artistically (NO, I'm probably not going to collect Hitler paintings; then again, buying them, burning them and keeping the ashes in jars, IS an interesting past time; if you're rich).
"That attitude came about because my grandmother wanted nothing to do with Charlie Chaplin, whom I loved, and as it turned out, her distaste for him was for an incorrect reason. Sadly, it didn't come out until after her death.
"Not long after my grandmother made her feelings about Chaplin clear, then my mother said she wanted nothing to do with the works of one of my favorite actors (no, sorry, can't remember anymore who), because he had fooled around on his wife and got a divorce because of it; like I cared.
"Getting back to Dave. If Dave had died from personal choice, then that was sad, as it indicates a problem feeling certain things requiring some aggressive technique, where he may have benefited from sensate focus with a romantic partner, or some therapy, perhaps. But if it was not of his choice, then it indicates some foul play, or an attempt (and very well formed) to discredit him."
Yes, I am a fan. Always have been. When Kung Fu was first on, I was just driving and into my second car, inconsequentially, a 1967 RS/SS 350 Camaro convertible, The first of a line, and at that time, Chevy's finest and deluxe effort for its new car. I was maybe 18. Every Thursday night, I would drive over to my older brother's house and he and I and several of his friends would watch the show. Before it started, he would go next door to his dad's tavern (we had different dads, what of it?!) and get a gallon of beer for $2. Then we'd all settle down to watch the show and imbibe in that which was available and much like breaking bread back then.
And NO ONE WAS ALLOWED TO TALK during the show. That's what commercials were for.
There WAS no Tivo. But we watched it with a reverence as its content was special in a wasteland of television shows. W learned something from it; it was one of the few TV shows ever, where you actually learned something from it, where you took away something useful that you could use in your life, and from then on. It probably changed my life. It taught me to not take some things so seriously; to consciously orient my attitude; to persevere and to consider what was really important, even when I thought I knew intrinsically what was. These were things I had already learned from starting Martial Arts in 6th grade, but this drove it home, made it cool, brought it to life.
But in the end, as Dave would tell you, he was just an actor, playing a part, that he was honored to have had the chance to play.
So, am I the one to judge? Does it matter to me what he did in his personal life? Even if his death were attributed to a self inflicted demise, it was a victimless crime. And I've never been one to point the finger at someone for living on the edge, or pushing the envelope, or living a little extreme. Not to mention, I never led a life like his so I really have nothing to compare it to.
Either way, I don't feel its my place to pass judgment. I don't have all the information anyway. And if I did, then I'd be just another armchair referee asshole playing judge. Wouldn't I?
In the end, when I consider what he gave us, gave me, if in only a part of his work, then I'm guess I'm grateful to have it. And so in the end, something that had nothing to do with this actor, became something about him, after all.
But like I said, no big deal.
"Speaking of flutes, one of my favorite stories about them, was from David Carradine, while in China, shooting Kill Bill. They were at an ancient Buddhist monastery where there was a very cool forest of bamboo. So he got some of it, and in the end, carved a new flute from one of the shafts. Also, he played his, "silent flute", used in the Circle of Iron film, and also one from the Kung Fu series, in the Kill Bill movies.
Their reply was:
"...are we going to also be reminded of the closet incident. Or that just breaks the mood?. I don't see too much spiritualism to be gleaned from this. Turned out to be a sad sack. Very sorry to say."
This response to my rather innocent comment actually made my kind of sad. My only point in bringing it up was in reference to the FLUTE and nothing to do with Dave, and mostly about being able to get bamboo from a forest that was next to a special ancient Buddhist Monastery in China. I mean, how cool would that be? Somehow, I think the intent fell (and the spiritual part) on deaf ears.
And so my reply was:
"Well, its not a big deal either way. I decided years ago though, as a kid, to separate an artist from their personal life. It has to be pretty extreme for me to discount what someone has done in life artistically (NO, I'm probably not going to collect Hitler paintings; then again, buying them, burning them and keeping the ashes in jars, IS an interesting past time; if you're rich).
"That attitude came about because my grandmother wanted nothing to do with Charlie Chaplin, whom I loved, and as it turned out, her distaste for him was for an incorrect reason. Sadly, it didn't come out until after her death.
"Not long after my grandmother made her feelings about Chaplin clear, then my mother said she wanted nothing to do with the works of one of my favorite actors (no, sorry, can't remember anymore who), because he had fooled around on his wife and got a divorce because of it; like I cared.
"Getting back to Dave. If Dave had died from personal choice, then that was sad, as it indicates a problem feeling certain things requiring some aggressive technique, where he may have benefited from sensate focus with a romantic partner, or some therapy, perhaps. But if it was not of his choice, then it indicates some foul play, or an attempt (and very well formed) to discredit him."
Yes, I am a fan. Always have been. When Kung Fu was first on, I was just driving and into my second car, inconsequentially, a 1967 RS/SS 350 Camaro convertible, The first of a line, and at that time, Chevy's finest and deluxe effort for its new car. I was maybe 18. Every Thursday night, I would drive over to my older brother's house and he and I and several of his friends would watch the show. Before it started, he would go next door to his dad's tavern (we had different dads, what of it?!) and get a gallon of beer for $2. Then we'd all settle down to watch the show and imbibe in that which was available and much like breaking bread back then.
And NO ONE WAS ALLOWED TO TALK during the show. That's what commercials were for.
There WAS no Tivo. But we watched it with a reverence as its content was special in a wasteland of television shows. W learned something from it; it was one of the few TV shows ever, where you actually learned something from it, where you took away something useful that you could use in your life, and from then on. It probably changed my life. It taught me to not take some things so seriously; to consciously orient my attitude; to persevere and to consider what was really important, even when I thought I knew intrinsically what was. These were things I had already learned from starting Martial Arts in 6th grade, but this drove it home, made it cool, brought it to life.
But in the end, as Dave would tell you, he was just an actor, playing a part, that he was honored to have had the chance to play.
So, am I the one to judge? Does it matter to me what he did in his personal life? Even if his death were attributed to a self inflicted demise, it was a victimless crime. And I've never been one to point the finger at someone for living on the edge, or pushing the envelope, or living a little extreme. Not to mention, I never led a life like his so I really have nothing to compare it to.
Either way, I don't feel its my place to pass judgment. I don't have all the information anyway. And if I did, then I'd be just another armchair referee asshole playing judge. Wouldn't I?
In the end, when I consider what he gave us, gave me, if in only a part of his work, then I'm guess I'm grateful to have it. And so in the end, something that had nothing to do with this actor, became something about him, after all.
But like I said, no big deal.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
"Dr. Doom" says....well, read the article
I have done, well, not too badly over past years in dealing with the stock market.
In the 90s, I did quite well. It helped me into my next house. Then I got out of it for a while and just before the dotcom bubble burst sadly, I got back into it. Up to that time, I was always able to say that I had never lost money on horse races or the stock market, I only made money.
Then, during the dotcom bubble burster, I lost for the first time. But only about $7,000 overall and well, I wasn't the only, nor the worst stung by that one. So I panned that and got into paying more attention to my 401k, and only that. Paying special attention about how to be careful, yet I tried to be as aggressive as reasonable. I ended up doing very well. But that time, I didn't have a chance to tell anyone, and no one else benefited.
Now, I can change that situation. And so, here is that story.
Background:
Before 2000, I did quite well in day trading stocks and with my 401k. The trouble there was, I took an entire year to learn day trading. Unbeknownst to me at the time, it was one of the last two great Bull markets back then. So that next year, I actually played. I put a lot of money (for me) into that market. I even got into margin.
At one point, I can remember watching a stock drop suddenly, unforeseen, leaving me that day, $25,000 in the hole beyond the $15,000 I had into that stock. Bummer. But, you have until a margin call, before you really have to worry. And hey, maybe there won't BE a margin call.
So, you sweat it out. So, I sweat it out.
For three nights, I lied next to my beautiful wife, staring at the ceiling; images of horrible debentures, dancing in my head. Each day, I got up more exhausted then the last and commuted an hour to Seattle, trying harder each day not to show the stress; not to kill myself or anyone else, on the highway. My wife asked me, it being patently obvious, what was wrong. I said, nothing, just work stuff. A few friends at work, following my escapades, learned as I went along, or tried their own formulas.
In the end, on the third day, the price of the stock rose. I waited. It continued up. I waited until it went up just enough so that I covered my margin and any transactions fees, and immediately put in a sell. It was still going up, and it took quickly. Then it stopped going up. Then it started going back down.
I relaxed and slept well that night. My positive, happy demeanor returned, and my wife was happy to see me smiling again. I realized, how lucky I was. The down side could have been very ugly. No house. Even no wife (who knows?). I never went on margin again. Maybe once or twice to be honest, but only as far as I could cover. Basically, I don't use margin. Its like going to a loan shark funded by Tony Soprano. Its taking a hell of a chance, and well, its not a good group to be in debt to.
So, though I made money back, though I used that money to buy a new house with some acreage, I backed out of day trading. I got more into my company 401k. I started paying attention to it instead. I started paying attention to U.S. and world politics and monetary fluctuations.
The point....
Some years ago, after 2000, I had heard things weren't going too well and perhaps, we could be in a "situation" shortly. I heard a guy, labeled "Dr. Doom" for his negative attitude about world economy, saying that we were headed to a downturn. I thought about that. And I got onto my 401k manager site and moved ALL my money into bonds. I was still paying into it out of my paychecks; my totals continued to increase, albeit at a much slower rate.
Within a month or so, everyone was complaining about their own 401k's. A few months later, I got into a discussion with friends at work about it and I offered my own complaint. I was really, REALLY annoyed, I said. MY 401k wasn't making ANY money; it was staying at the same amount, month after month. And I was still paying INTO it, so it should at LEAST go up a little. Right?
They all, in one move, turned their heads to me and someone said, "What are you complaining about? My 401k has dropped thousands of dollars." Another said they lost even more. Someone said I was doing really well, and HOW did I manage that. So I told them, a few months ago I pulled everything and put it in bonds. I felt bad for them. But later I reflected on that talk and realized, I was sorry for them but pretty ecstatic for myself and family.
Thanks Dr. Doom.
I continued after that to play with the 401k. I eventually moved all my money into international stocks. And did well, as the US stocks were barely moving. After a while, the international stocks slowed and US were doing better, and I moved mostly into US stocks. Later, both stocks were about even. That was when I used a kind of Occultist program on the 401k web site. You give a bit of your info, and it calculates what you should select for your 401k.
Not trusting it much, I went through the process and did whatever it said. It selected for me, about eight different funds, bonds, etc. Over time, I can now tell you, it worked for me very well. In good times, I will probably use it again.
But let's get to the point, let's get to, today. I just listed to economist, Dr. Nouriel Roubini, better known as "Dr. Doom". He said, he would call himself, "Dr. Realist". He is author of, "Crisis Economics - A crash course in the Future of Finance" (with Stephen Mihm).
He believes that capitalism, is always going to be in crisis. He paraphrased Winston Churchill as, "Capitalism is the worst economic system apart from the alternative. We tried communism, it didn't work; but we need a [proper] market system." He predicted a great deal of the bad things that have actually happened in the five years since he first said them.
Dr. Roubini said that over the next few months, the market is going to have to take a downturn, into a market correction. He said that last time he said something like this, history showed he was actually being optimistic, although everyone had said he was being pessimistic. He was being, Dr. Doom.
So, Doom said that in 2006 when he predicted home prices would fall 20% they actually fell 30%; and his 50% fall in home sales was actually 80%. So, believe him or not, he knows SOME thing. I think what's important here, isn't his degree of correctness but his correctness of a trend.
So now he is saying that the market will need to do a correction over the next few months of perhaps 10%; even the risk of a double dip recession (I don't have a clue what that is, but I don't like the sound of it). He said there could be a bear market for the next few months.
All the major US indices were negative. For the week the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped -426.77 points or -4.02%. The Standard & Poor's 500 Index dropped -47.99 points or -4.23%, while the Nasdaq Composite dropped -117.81 points or -5.02%. It already looks rough, don't you think?
What am I now going to do? I could wait and once I see the turn start in the market, put all my 401k back into bonds as I did last time. When it starts coming out of it, I'll go back to the calculator. But should I wait? The market dropped over 400 points last week. Will it go up a bit on Monday? Maybe.
The big question now is, what are you going to do?
In the 90s, I did quite well. It helped me into my next house. Then I got out of it for a while and just before the dotcom bubble burst sadly, I got back into it. Up to that time, I was always able to say that I had never lost money on horse races or the stock market, I only made money.
Then, during the dotcom bubble burster, I lost for the first time. But only about $7,000 overall and well, I wasn't the only, nor the worst stung by that one. So I panned that and got into paying more attention to my 401k, and only that. Paying special attention about how to be careful, yet I tried to be as aggressive as reasonable. I ended up doing very well. But that time, I didn't have a chance to tell anyone, and no one else benefited.
Now, I can change that situation. And so, here is that story.
Background:
Before 2000, I did quite well in day trading stocks and with my 401k. The trouble there was, I took an entire year to learn day trading. Unbeknownst to me at the time, it was one of the last two great Bull markets back then. So that next year, I actually played. I put a lot of money (for me) into that market. I even got into margin.
At one point, I can remember watching a stock drop suddenly, unforeseen, leaving me that day, $25,000 in the hole beyond the $15,000 I had into that stock. Bummer. But, you have until a margin call, before you really have to worry. And hey, maybe there won't BE a margin call.
So, you sweat it out. So, I sweat it out.
For three nights, I lied next to my beautiful wife, staring at the ceiling; images of horrible debentures, dancing in my head. Each day, I got up more exhausted then the last and commuted an hour to Seattle, trying harder each day not to show the stress; not to kill myself or anyone else, on the highway. My wife asked me, it being patently obvious, what was wrong. I said, nothing, just work stuff. A few friends at work, following my escapades, learned as I went along, or tried their own formulas.
In the end, on the third day, the price of the stock rose. I waited. It continued up. I waited until it went up just enough so that I covered my margin and any transactions fees, and immediately put in a sell. It was still going up, and it took quickly. Then it stopped going up. Then it started going back down.
I relaxed and slept well that night. My positive, happy demeanor returned, and my wife was happy to see me smiling again. I realized, how lucky I was. The down side could have been very ugly. No house. Even no wife (who knows?). I never went on margin again. Maybe once or twice to be honest, but only as far as I could cover. Basically, I don't use margin. Its like going to a loan shark funded by Tony Soprano. Its taking a hell of a chance, and well, its not a good group to be in debt to.
So, though I made money back, though I used that money to buy a new house with some acreage, I backed out of day trading. I got more into my company 401k. I started paying attention to it instead. I started paying attention to U.S. and world politics and monetary fluctuations.
The point....
Some years ago, after 2000, I had heard things weren't going too well and perhaps, we could be in a "situation" shortly. I heard a guy, labeled "Dr. Doom" for his negative attitude about world economy, saying that we were headed to a downturn. I thought about that. And I got onto my 401k manager site and moved ALL my money into bonds. I was still paying into it out of my paychecks; my totals continued to increase, albeit at a much slower rate.
Within a month or so, everyone was complaining about their own 401k's. A few months later, I got into a discussion with friends at work about it and I offered my own complaint. I was really, REALLY annoyed, I said. MY 401k wasn't making ANY money; it was staying at the same amount, month after month. And I was still paying INTO it, so it should at LEAST go up a little. Right?
They all, in one move, turned their heads to me and someone said, "What are you complaining about? My 401k has dropped thousands of dollars." Another said they lost even more. Someone said I was doing really well, and HOW did I manage that. So I told them, a few months ago I pulled everything and put it in bonds. I felt bad for them. But later I reflected on that talk and realized, I was sorry for them but pretty ecstatic for myself and family.
Thanks Dr. Doom.
I continued after that to play with the 401k. I eventually moved all my money into international stocks. And did well, as the US stocks were barely moving. After a while, the international stocks slowed and US were doing better, and I moved mostly into US stocks. Later, both stocks were about even. That was when I used a kind of Occultist program on the 401k web site. You give a bit of your info, and it calculates what you should select for your 401k.
Not trusting it much, I went through the process and did whatever it said. It selected for me, about eight different funds, bonds, etc. Over time, I can now tell you, it worked for me very well. In good times, I will probably use it again.
But let's get to the point, let's get to, today. I just listed to economist, Dr. Nouriel Roubini, better known as "Dr. Doom". He said, he would call himself, "Dr. Realist". He is author of, "Crisis Economics - A crash course in the Future of Finance" (with Stephen Mihm).
He believes that capitalism, is always going to be in crisis. He paraphrased Winston Churchill as, "Capitalism is the worst economic system apart from the alternative. We tried communism, it didn't work; but we need a [proper] market system." He predicted a great deal of the bad things that have actually happened in the five years since he first said them.
Dr. Roubini said that over the next few months, the market is going to have to take a downturn, into a market correction. He said that last time he said something like this, history showed he was actually being optimistic, although everyone had said he was being pessimistic. He was being, Dr. Doom.
So, Doom said that in 2006 when he predicted home prices would fall 20% they actually fell 30%; and his 50% fall in home sales was actually 80%. So, believe him or not, he knows SOME thing. I think what's important here, isn't his degree of correctness but his correctness of a trend.
So now he is saying that the market will need to do a correction over the next few months of perhaps 10%; even the risk of a double dip recession (I don't have a clue what that is, but I don't like the sound of it). He said there could be a bear market for the next few months.
All the major US indices were negative. For the week the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped -426.77 points or -4.02%. The Standard & Poor's 500 Index dropped -47.99 points or -4.23%, while the Nasdaq Composite dropped -117.81 points or -5.02%. It already looks rough, don't you think?
What am I now going to do? I could wait and once I see the turn start in the market, put all my 401k back into bonds as I did last time. When it starts coming out of it, I'll go back to the calculator. But should I wait? The market dropped over 400 points last week. Will it go up a bit on Monday? Maybe.
The big question now is, what are you going to do?
Nobel Prize in Literature 1954 - Ernest Hemingway
I was putting together a humorous scene today (being a scenarist among other things), and in researching Ernest "Papa" Hemingway, I ran into his Nobel Prize speech.
I was so moved, that I thought I would post it here, as his words are rather humbling and rewarding to review. There is really nothing to add to these humbling words, so I offer them here for your consideration, and will for now, simply recede into the shadows....
------
As the Laureate was unable to be present at the Nobel Banquet at the City Hall in Stockholm, December 10, 1954, the speech was read by John C. Cabot, United States Ambassador*
-----
«Having no facility for speech-making and no command of oratory nor any domination of rhetoric, I wish to thank the administrators of the generosity of Alfred Nobel for this Prize.
No writer who knows the great writers who did not receive the Prize can accept it other than with humility. There is no need to list these writers. Everyone here may make his own list according to his knowledge and his conscience.
It would be impossible for me to ask the Ambassador of my country to read a speech in which a writer said all of the things which are in his heart. Things may not be immediately discernible in what a man writes, and in this sometimes he is fortunate; but eventually they are quite clear and by these and the degree of alchemy that he possesses he will endure or be forgotten.
Writing, at its best, is a lonely life. Organizations for writers palliate the writer's loneliness but I doubt if they improve his writing. He grows in public stature as he sheds his loneliness and often his work deteriorates. For he does his work alone and if he is a good enough writer he must face eternity, or the lack of it, each day.
For a true writer each book should be a new beginning where he tries again for something that is beyond attainment. He should always try for something that has never been done or that others have tried and failed. Then sometimes, with great luck, he will succeed.
How simple the writing of literature would be if it were only necessary to write in another way what has been well written. It is because we have had such great writers in the past that a writer is driven far out past where he can go, out to where no one can help him.
I have spoken too long for a writer. A writer should write what he has to say and not speak it. Again I thank you.»
----
Hemingway could not make the banquet so his speech was read for him that night. However, he recorded it at a later time. To hear this speech, it is available from NobelPrize.org:
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1954/hemingway-speech.html
I was so moved, that I thought I would post it here, as his words are rather humbling and rewarding to review. There is really nothing to add to these humbling words, so I offer them here for your consideration, and will for now, simply recede into the shadows....
------
As the Laureate was unable to be present at the Nobel Banquet at the City Hall in Stockholm, December 10, 1954, the speech was read by John C. Cabot, United States Ambassador*
-----
«Having no facility for speech-making and no command of oratory nor any domination of rhetoric, I wish to thank the administrators of the generosity of Alfred Nobel for this Prize.
No writer who knows the great writers who did not receive the Prize can accept it other than with humility. There is no need to list these writers. Everyone here may make his own list according to his knowledge and his conscience.
It would be impossible for me to ask the Ambassador of my country to read a speech in which a writer said all of the things which are in his heart. Things may not be immediately discernible in what a man writes, and in this sometimes he is fortunate; but eventually they are quite clear and by these and the degree of alchemy that he possesses he will endure or be forgotten.
Writing, at its best, is a lonely life. Organizations for writers palliate the writer's loneliness but I doubt if they improve his writing. He grows in public stature as he sheds his loneliness and often his work deteriorates. For he does his work alone and if he is a good enough writer he must face eternity, or the lack of it, each day.
For a true writer each book should be a new beginning where he tries again for something that is beyond attainment. He should always try for something that has never been done or that others have tried and failed. Then sometimes, with great luck, he will succeed.
How simple the writing of literature would be if it were only necessary to write in another way what has been well written. It is because we have had such great writers in the past that a writer is driven far out past where he can go, out to where no one can help him.
I have spoken too long for a writer. A writer should write what he has to say and not speak it. Again I thank you.»
----
Hemingway could not make the banquet so his speech was read for him that night. However, he recorded it at a later time. To hear this speech, it is available from NobelPrize.org:
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1954/hemingway-speech.html
Friday, May 21, 2010
“Eureka! - I have found it!”
How does one affect changes? Not around you, but within.
Are they slow to come? Are they sudden like a heart attack? How does the change happen? An old Zen Buddhist adage says in order to affect change, you simply, "Do". If you want to change, just do it. Don't think. There may be some scientific fact to that method.
A study by Dr. Jeremy K. Seamans from the Brain Research Centre at the University of British Columbia (UBC) and Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute showed that "although it took many trials for the animals to figure out the new rule, the recorded ensembles did not change gradually but instead exhibited a rather abrupt transition to a new pattern that corresponded directly to the shift in behavior, as if the network had experienced an "a-ha" moment." (ScienceDaily - May 14, 2010)
So, even if you have worked hard to institute a change, it still snaps, in a moment, when it finally takes. Or if you are entrenched in a behavior, when it changes, it will still be sudden, that is no mistake.
"We have studied the brain and the dopamine D2 receptors, and have shown that the dopamine system of healthy, highly creative people is similar to that found in people with schizophrenia," says associate professor Fredrik Ullén from Karolinska Institutet's Department of Women's and Children's Health, co-author of the study that appears in the journal PLoS ONE. "Thinking outside the box might be facilitated by having a somewhat less intact box," says Dr Ullén about his new
findings.
So those with a high degree of creativity, get more information. It comes faster than in normal people, with less barriers blocking the information flow. And if you are a little unstable, it might not hurt the creative aspects of processing. Still there would need to be some kind of boundaries involved to congeal the information, otherwise, you become unbalanced, and not in a good way.
"Fewer D2 receptors in the thalamus probably means a lower degree of signal filtering, and thus a higher flow of information from the thalamus," says Dr Ullén. This means that those artistic, creative types and those with an unbalance in the structures of their thalamus, are able to see a wider range and with greater speed that those with normal processing capabilities, especially in the area of problem solving.
Psychiatrist Szabolcs Kéri of Semmelweis University in Hungary focused his research on neuregulin 1. This gene typically enables functions a variety of brain processes, both developing and strengthening neurons interactivity. Dr. Kéri points out that “molecular factors that are loosely associated with severe mental disorders but are present in many healthy people may have an advantage enabling us to think more creatively.”
Seeing a pattern yet?
Results by Vanderbilt psychologists Brad Folley and Sohee Park recently published by the journal Schizophrenia Research, showed that typically normal creatives use both sides of their brain, not mostly the right side, which is popularly thought and derided by the scientific community. But in the brain scans of schizotypes, "showed a hugely increased activation of the right hemisphere compared to the schizophrenics and the normal controls."
So popular culture is wrong. But still, correct in that, extreme creativity, possibly out of control creativity, is indeed involved in the over use of the right side of the brain.
Where does all this leave us?
Well, let's talk about ADD.
An article on Alterations in Brain's Reward System Related to ADHD (ScienceDaily - Feb. 3, 2010), says: "Differences in the structure of the ventral striatum -- particularly on the right-hand side -- could be seen between those with ADHD and those without the disorder. Children with ADHD exhibited reduced volumes in this region. These differences were associated with symptoms of hyperactivity and impulsiveness."
Interesting. So now what? Not what you would expect? Although ADHD kids also have increased neural functions and cognitive leaps, their motivational parts of the brain are smaller, requiring increased stimulation to maintain focus. Their reward system simply works differently that is considered normal. Which is why discipline is so important as they have to learn to consciously maintain their focus rather than have it come naturally to them.
So now, just see if you can sit still for a little while and think about all this....
Are they slow to come? Are they sudden like a heart attack? How does the change happen? An old Zen Buddhist adage says in order to affect change, you simply, "Do". If you want to change, just do it. Don't think. There may be some scientific fact to that method.
A study by Dr. Jeremy K. Seamans from the Brain Research Centre at the University of British Columbia (UBC) and Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute showed that "although it took many trials for the animals to figure out the new rule, the recorded ensembles did not change gradually but instead exhibited a rather abrupt transition to a new pattern that corresponded directly to the shift in behavior, as if the network had experienced an "a-ha" moment." (ScienceDaily - May 14, 2010)
So, even if you have worked hard to institute a change, it still snaps, in a moment, when it finally takes. Or if you are entrenched in a behavior, when it changes, it will still be sudden, that is no mistake.
"We have studied the brain and the dopamine D2 receptors, and have shown that the dopamine system of healthy, highly creative people is similar to that found in people with schizophrenia," says associate professor Fredrik Ullén from Karolinska Institutet's Department of Women's and Children's Health, co-author of the study that appears in the journal PLoS ONE. "Thinking outside the box might be facilitated by having a somewhat less intact box," says Dr Ullén about his new
findings.
So those with a high degree of creativity, get more information. It comes faster than in normal people, with less barriers blocking the information flow. And if you are a little unstable, it might not hurt the creative aspects of processing. Still there would need to be some kind of boundaries involved to congeal the information, otherwise, you become unbalanced, and not in a good way.
"Fewer D2 receptors in the thalamus probably means a lower degree of signal filtering, and thus a higher flow of information from the thalamus," says Dr Ullén. This means that those artistic, creative types and those with an unbalance in the structures of their thalamus, are able to see a wider range and with greater speed that those with normal processing capabilities, especially in the area of problem solving.
Psychiatrist Szabolcs Kéri of Semmelweis University in Hungary focused his research on neuregulin 1. This gene typically enables functions a variety of brain processes, both developing and strengthening neurons interactivity. Dr. Kéri points out that “molecular factors that are loosely associated with severe mental disorders but are present in many healthy people may have an advantage enabling us to think more creatively.”
Seeing a pattern yet?
Results by Vanderbilt psychologists Brad Folley and Sohee Park recently published by the journal Schizophrenia Research, showed that typically normal creatives use both sides of their brain, not mostly the right side, which is popularly thought and derided by the scientific community. But in the brain scans of schizotypes, "showed a hugely increased activation of the right hemisphere compared to the schizophrenics and the normal controls."
So popular culture is wrong. But still, correct in that, extreme creativity, possibly out of control creativity, is indeed involved in the over use of the right side of the brain.
Where does all this leave us?
Well, let's talk about ADD.
An article on Alterations in Brain's Reward System Related to ADHD (ScienceDaily - Feb. 3, 2010), says: "Differences in the structure of the ventral striatum -- particularly on the right-hand side -- could be seen between those with ADHD and those without the disorder. Children with ADHD exhibited reduced volumes in this region. These differences were associated with symptoms of hyperactivity and impulsiveness."
Interesting. So now what? Not what you would expect? Although ADHD kids also have increased neural functions and cognitive leaps, their motivational parts of the brain are smaller, requiring increased stimulation to maintain focus. Their reward system simply works differently that is considered normal. Which is why discipline is so important as they have to learn to consciously maintain their focus rather than have it come naturally to them.
So now, just see if you can sit still for a little while and think about all this....
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Music, mine or yours, what is it?
Earlier this week I had a discussion about what constitutes "music". I was surprised to find, as I have been with others, that there is a disagreement on what it is.
How hard can it be, right? Music. But, what is it?
As a focal point, we picked old school Rap, as it was when it first came out. I really didn't like it. I didn't understand it. I liked music. Worse still, I mostly preferred guitar heavy music, instrumentals. Not just hard rock or "metal" but as I played guitar, I just understood that instrument best. I wasn't that hot on vocals and seldom could tell what they were singing about anyway. But, Rap. Rap was pure rhythm. Arguably, nearly percussion. More a blend. But, I liked "music".
Back when Rap first hit records, I had arguments with its fans that it wasn't really music. I said, until they add melody, it would remain a fringe genre and never make it big. It simply was not "music".
And so, when they did finally start to add melody to rap, only then did it explode commercially. I even started to like some of it. Some original rap was good, but much of it was just bad, still trying to find its form and a niche.
So the question is, can spoken word be considered "music"? I've always argued, N0. That's why its always been called, up until Rap, spoken word.
Consider some songs that have come out, even before Rap, where the "singer" isn't singing. Think, William Shatner in the 60s and plenty of exploitation songs\albums by the famous who can't really sing, but are such big stars their "songs" and albums sell anyway; some even made it big. Regardless, is THAT music? Now that IS a debate, I'll grant you that. But, when you have no singing voice, no melody, where's the concept of it being "music" come in?
Well, it doesn't.
I think part of the problem is in the definitions. One has to use words as they are generally defined and understood. That's what language is. We can't arbitrarily make up meanings. Although, we can specify definitions of words within a lexicon related to a specific field, your still can't simply just decide what a word means and expect others to know that.
Definition of "Music" from WordNet at Princeton University:
--an artistic form of auditory communication incorporating instrumental or vocal
tones in a structured and continuous manner
--any agreeable (pleasing and harmonious) sounds; "he fell asleep to the music of
the wind chimes"
--musical activity (singing or whistling etc.); "his music was his central
interest"
--(music) the sounds produced by singers or musical instruments (or reproductions
of such sounds)
---http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=music
And so, my argument came to an impasse. We basically agreed to disagree.
After this unsatisfactory ending to my argument, where my noble opponent thought music was pretty much anything anyone thinks it is, up against my definition it requiring melody, I then spoke with another who brought up two salient points.
One, that we need to define "melody" which I mistakenly assumed that everyone just intrinsically knows; and two, that this argument of mine had a lot to do with specificity and generalness; AND, definitions. Maybe, I wasn't in the right. But still I have a gut instinct, that I am.
So, what's music to YOU?
How hard can it be, right? Music. But, what is it?
As a focal point, we picked old school Rap, as it was when it first came out. I really didn't like it. I didn't understand it. I liked music. Worse still, I mostly preferred guitar heavy music, instrumentals. Not just hard rock or "metal" but as I played guitar, I just understood that instrument best. I wasn't that hot on vocals and seldom could tell what they were singing about anyway. But, Rap. Rap was pure rhythm. Arguably, nearly percussion. More a blend. But, I liked "music".
Back when Rap first hit records, I had arguments with its fans that it wasn't really music. I said, until they add melody, it would remain a fringe genre and never make it big. It simply was not "music".
And so, when they did finally start to add melody to rap, only then did it explode commercially. I even started to like some of it. Some original rap was good, but much of it was just bad, still trying to find its form and a niche.
So the question is, can spoken word be considered "music"? I've always argued, N0. That's why its always been called, up until Rap, spoken word.
Consider some songs that have come out, even before Rap, where the "singer" isn't singing. Think, William Shatner in the 60s and plenty of exploitation songs\albums by the famous who can't really sing, but are such big stars their "songs" and albums sell anyway; some even made it big. Regardless, is THAT music? Now that IS a debate, I'll grant you that. But, when you have no singing voice, no melody, where's the concept of it being "music" come in?
Well, it doesn't.
I think part of the problem is in the definitions. One has to use words as they are generally defined and understood. That's what language is. We can't arbitrarily make up meanings. Although, we can specify definitions of words within a lexicon related to a specific field, your still can't simply just decide what a word means and expect others to know that.
Definition of "Music" from WordNet at Princeton University:
--an artistic form of auditory communication incorporating instrumental or vocal
tones in a structured and continuous manner
--any agreeable (pleasing and harmonious) sounds; "he fell asleep to the music of
the wind chimes"
--musical activity (singing or whistling etc.); "his music was his central
interest"
--(music) the sounds produced by singers or musical instruments (or reproductions
of such sounds)
---http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=music
And so, my argument came to an impasse. We basically agreed to disagree.
After this unsatisfactory ending to my argument, where my noble opponent thought music was pretty much anything anyone thinks it is, up against my definition it requiring melody, I then spoke with another who brought up two salient points.
One, that we need to define "melody" which I mistakenly assumed that everyone just intrinsically knows; and two, that this argument of mine had a lot to do with specificity and generalness; AND, definitions. Maybe, I wasn't in the right. But still I have a gut instinct, that I am.
So, what's music to YOU?
PTSD Vets and Marijuana
I heard this report on the internet radio today on NPR and it just got under my skin. I found myself listening to a recent war Vet with PTSD, asking for help by being allowed to relieve intense anxiety from a very unpleasant war induced, condition. And we (yes, us, fellow citizen, via the Government by which we are represented) are making him and many others like him, miserable.
Why?
It would seem that some of our Vets who have PTSD are requesting to legally smoke (or be prescribed) what we will here call, Marijuana. Rather incorrectly referring to it as such, too; calling it cannabis would be better. Typically before the end of prohibition, it was called, Cannabis Indica. "Marijuana" came to be called that in the US around the turn of the last century, just after prohibition. It was, really a rather racist attempt, to link it with Mexicans that were claimed to be sowing danger and harm to a fearful American populace.
This is not a history of Marijuana article, but for the sake of clarity, reality, apparently, was buried by FBI "Special" Agent (and please read that as, "short bus special") Harry J. Anslinger, our first drug Czar and a total lying nut case. He needed to find work for his FBI agents who were suddenly out of work from lack of prohibition work and well, that brings us up to the mess we have now. To be fair, the stage was set for Anslinger by the Great Depression when many Mexicans migrated to the US bringing Marijuana and crime with them. Prior to this, cannabis had never been much of a problem and was frequently sold at apothecaries in bottled tinctures.
The campaign against marijuana 1930-1937, is an interesting read in wikipedia. Or, check out "The Emperor Wears No Clothes", by Jack Herer.
Anyway, I find it ludicrous that there are those who put these Vets down for their requests. But then we have historically not taken very good care of our Vets after a war. Eventually we do, we're not monsters, not really, but we usually need to be embarrassed into it.
I mean, REALLY?
You (we) send them to get blown up, die, become anxiety ridden because of a constant and real fear of being severally damaged, experiencing horrific things, or dying possibly horribly, and people are questioning that they want something to relieve their discomfort? Stand the Hell up, salute and hand them a damn baggy, for God's sake!
I have to wonder who in the Hell these people think they are? What right do they have to do this to them. I don't mean, what LEGAL right, I mean, what MORAL or ETHICAL right (remember that all you Doctors out there?).
The therapy they want to give Vets is good, they obviously need that. But then what do they get? Prescription drugs? Isn't it funny that expensive drugs are "warranted" while cheap or free substances are considered "dangerous" or illegal? And something that's been used for decades and decades and back to the beginning of our Country.
They say we need more research on this. REALLY? Haven't we been studying it for quite some time now? For God's sake man, watch a documentary! Don't we have millions of at least anecdotal information on it and its effects? I mean, who do you know that has smoked it all their life? How are THEY doing? Use your eyes, use your mind.
Yes, some people ARE just a waste of space, but that is there personality showing through. I know many who are brilliant individuals and are still productive, intelligent and doing good for our society. What happened to this country allow people their choice to live their life as they see fit. How is their pursuit in this manner damaging to our society? Because its illegal? Do you really want to examine THAT? Because, you should.
NPR had an interview on a Vet who claimed it helped his anxiety levels for PTSD. Well, considering how paranoid it can make you, I wonder about that; but if he says it helps him, hey, let him have it. His wife, stating that they were headed to a divorce ("Sorry, honey, but its true."), said that after he stared putting marijuana in his hot chocolate (rather than smoking it), she saw a dramatic and immediate positive affect.
I find it interesting that "they" want to give us prescription drugs, but not allow us a natural substance; one that in fact grows wild. Why, is it considered so horrible and dangerous and "unknown"? REALLY? Unknown substance? Amazing! Really.
Prescription drugs ARE rather harsh on one's system. In comparison, marijuana is pretty mild. Alas, the drug companies and the government, make no money on it. Uh, oh. Warning sign. However, they do on alcohol and well, that's legal.
Hmmm....
But how much do they make on marijuana being illegal? What are the side effects of the "legal" drugs, such as Paroxetine, Sold As Paxil, Seroxat, Deroxat in comparison to marijuana (in brackets)?
Serious side effects:
* seizure (convulsions) [no]
* tremors, shivering, muscle stiffness or twitching [no]
* problems with balance or coordination [no]
* agitation, confusion, sweating, fast heartbeat; or [no, unless massive dose]
* easy bruising or bleeding (such as a nosebleed) [no]
Less serious:
* asthenia (weakness) [nope]
* sweating [nope]
* nausea [nope, just the opposite]
* decreased appetite [LOL]
* somnolence (drowsiness) [OK, granted, sometimes]
* dizziness [again, just the oppisite as it helps with this]
* insomnia [absolutely not]
* tremor [No]
* nervousness [no, unless you count paranoia, but depends on strain]
* ejaculatory disturbance [no]
* other male genital disorders [no]
* female genital disorders [no other than possibly dryness at times]
* dry mouth [again, at times, but nothing a drink or beer can't fix]
* constipation [quite the contrary]
* decreased libido [absolutely not]
* yawn [OK, I'll grant you that one, sometimes]
Less common side effects of Paroxetine (Paxil, Seroxat, Deroxat) include:
* paresthesia (skin sensations) [no]
* blurred vision [no, unless you're really into massive doses]
* flatulence [hmmm, not that I've heard of]
What about cost? Marijuana, esp. in legal to grow states, can be free after initial set up costs which are minimal at the lower end (hey, it takes a pot (no pun intended) some seeds, water, sunlight, the love and care comes naturally after that).
Doses of 20 and 40 mg/day of paroxetine are effective and well tolerated in the treatment of adults with chronic PTSD. Prices vary from what I found around $4.50 a pill, take or leave a dollar.
One online article compared placebo, with the new-generation antidepressants, saying they do not produce clinically significant improvements in depression in patients who initially have moderate or even very severe depression. That’s according to a new meta-analysis of clinical trials research. A triumph for the placebo effect?
So these prescription drugs may not even be that effective; at least, in some cases. With breakthroughs like the Craig Venter team has had, with a bacteria controlled by a man-made, complete collection of genes, we will one day soon maybe, have safer more specific drugs that make all this a moot point. Or, maybe something better than drugs. Ending all this nonsense. Think about all the money that will be saved not spending it on drugs, law enforcement related to drug abuse and the War on Drugs ridiculous pursuits of citizens minding their own business. But for now, well, its not.
Also, how long a drug takes to produce its different effects, is often different for each effect. The side-effects may hit immediately and the main effect only develop after several weeks! Most anti-depressants reach the brain quickly, but take several weeks to have an anti-depressant effect. Let's not even get into here how anti-depressants can lead to suicide. Suicide?
Marijuana? Its cheap, or free, unless you buy outright and don't grow it yourself. Relief? Instant. It wears off soon. Its not harsh to the system, esp., depending on how it is administered. It has no effect like Alcohol or cocaine. Two drugs that have many similar affects like numbness, anxiety, paranoia, even violent behavior; ask any cop on a late Saturday night, if he'd rather deal with a pot-head, or a coked up partier or a drunk).
So. What IS the deal? Why IS this such a big deal?
Who, is getting rich off this deal? And I don't just mean in the way of money, but in resources for government offices and departments who are given license (sometimes too much so) to deal with it. We don't even need to get into the racial aspects of how many ethnic people are in jail due only to marijuana charges; or simply how many in our jails are there for marijuana charges, non violent crimes and put in with violent criminals, leading them to more serious crimes once they are realized. In some cases, we are creating our own worse problems.
This all seems to bring us back around to the "War on Drugs"; doesn't it? This "War" concept, really, that needs to be rooted out of our government and our mentality. Its certainly about time.
So, let's get back to the basics.
The PTSD suffers. I don't advocate giving them whatever they want. I remember the opium or Heroin that Vietnam soldiers got into and what a nightmare that was. But marijuana is not a gateway drug. That argument indicates milk as the culprit. Look it up. All heroin uses once took milk as a child.
These heroes of wars we sent them to, aren't asking for narcotics. And Pot, my friends, is not a narcotic; its just labeled as such by the government. Ask any doctor for a clinical or technical description and they will say calling it a narcotic is ludicrous and at very least, totally inaccurate. Just because you give something a name, does that really make it what it whatever you want to call it?
Let's call a rose a rose and be done with it.
In the end, let's stop thinking about our incorrect historical understandings and consider these people as people. Let's look at things with a critical mind. Look around the world and see what actually is and go forth with that in mind.
Stop being the problem and start being part of the solution.
Why?
It would seem that some of our Vets who have PTSD are requesting to legally smoke (or be prescribed) what we will here call, Marijuana. Rather incorrectly referring to it as such, too; calling it cannabis would be better. Typically before the end of prohibition, it was called, Cannabis Indica. "Marijuana" came to be called that in the US around the turn of the last century, just after prohibition. It was, really a rather racist attempt, to link it with Mexicans that were claimed to be sowing danger and harm to a fearful American populace.
This is not a history of Marijuana article, but for the sake of clarity, reality, apparently, was buried by FBI "Special" Agent (and please read that as, "short bus special") Harry J. Anslinger, our first drug Czar and a total lying nut case. He needed to find work for his FBI agents who were suddenly out of work from lack of prohibition work and well, that brings us up to the mess we have now. To be fair, the stage was set for Anslinger by the Great Depression when many Mexicans migrated to the US bringing Marijuana and crime with them. Prior to this, cannabis had never been much of a problem and was frequently sold at apothecaries in bottled tinctures.
The campaign against marijuana 1930-1937, is an interesting read in wikipedia. Or, check out "The Emperor Wears No Clothes", by Jack Herer.
Anyway, I find it ludicrous that there are those who put these Vets down for their requests. But then we have historically not taken very good care of our Vets after a war. Eventually we do, we're not monsters, not really, but we usually need to be embarrassed into it.
I mean, REALLY?
You (we) send them to get blown up, die, become anxiety ridden because of a constant and real fear of being severally damaged, experiencing horrific things, or dying possibly horribly, and people are questioning that they want something to relieve their discomfort? Stand the Hell up, salute and hand them a damn baggy, for God's sake!
I have to wonder who in the Hell these people think they are? What right do they have to do this to them. I don't mean, what LEGAL right, I mean, what MORAL or ETHICAL right (remember that all you Doctors out there?).
The therapy they want to give Vets is good, they obviously need that. But then what do they get? Prescription drugs? Isn't it funny that expensive drugs are "warranted" while cheap or free substances are considered "dangerous" or illegal? And something that's been used for decades and decades and back to the beginning of our Country.
They say we need more research on this. REALLY? Haven't we been studying it for quite some time now? For God's sake man, watch a documentary! Don't we have millions of at least anecdotal information on it and its effects? I mean, who do you know that has smoked it all their life? How are THEY doing? Use your eyes, use your mind.
Yes, some people ARE just a waste of space, but that is there personality showing through. I know many who are brilliant individuals and are still productive, intelligent and doing good for our society. What happened to this country allow people their choice to live their life as they see fit. How is their pursuit in this manner damaging to our society? Because its illegal? Do you really want to examine THAT? Because, you should.
NPR had an interview on a Vet who claimed it helped his anxiety levels for PTSD. Well, considering how paranoid it can make you, I wonder about that; but if he says it helps him, hey, let him have it. His wife, stating that they were headed to a divorce ("Sorry, honey, but its true."), said that after he stared putting marijuana in his hot chocolate (rather than smoking it), she saw a dramatic and immediate positive affect.
I find it interesting that "they" want to give us prescription drugs, but not allow us a natural substance; one that in fact grows wild. Why, is it considered so horrible and dangerous and "unknown"? REALLY? Unknown substance? Amazing! Really.
Prescription drugs ARE rather harsh on one's system. In comparison, marijuana is pretty mild. Alas, the drug companies and the government, make no money on it. Uh, oh. Warning sign. However, they do on alcohol and well, that's legal.
Hmmm....
But how much do they make on marijuana being illegal? What are the side effects of the "legal" drugs, such as Paroxetine, Sold As Paxil, Seroxat, Deroxat in comparison to marijuana (in brackets)?
Serious side effects:
* seizure (convulsions) [no]
* tremors, shivering, muscle stiffness or twitching [no]
* problems with balance or coordination [no]
* agitation, confusion, sweating, fast heartbeat; or [no, unless massive dose]
* easy bruising or bleeding (such as a nosebleed) [no]
Less serious:
* asthenia (weakness) [nope]
* sweating [nope]
* nausea [nope, just the opposite]
* decreased appetite [LOL]
* somnolence (drowsiness) [OK, granted, sometimes]
* dizziness [again, just the oppisite as it helps with this]
* insomnia [absolutely not]
* tremor [No]
* nervousness [no, unless you count paranoia, but depends on strain]
* ejaculatory disturbance [no]
* other male genital disorders [no]
* female genital disorders [no other than possibly dryness at times]
* dry mouth [again, at times, but nothing a drink or beer can't fix]
* constipation [quite the contrary]
* decreased libido [absolutely not]
* yawn [OK, I'll grant you that one, sometimes]
Less common side effects of Paroxetine (Paxil, Seroxat, Deroxat) include:
* paresthesia (skin sensations) [no]
* blurred vision [no, unless you're really into massive doses]
* flatulence [hmmm, not that I've heard of]
What about cost? Marijuana, esp. in legal to grow states, can be free after initial set up costs which are minimal at the lower end (hey, it takes a pot (no pun intended) some seeds, water, sunlight, the love and care comes naturally after that).
Doses of 20 and 40 mg/day of paroxetine are effective and well tolerated in the treatment of adults with chronic PTSD. Prices vary from what I found around $4.50 a pill, take or leave a dollar.
One online article compared placebo, with the new-generation antidepressants, saying they do not produce clinically significant improvements in depression in patients who initially have moderate or even very severe depression. That’s according to a new meta-analysis of clinical trials research. A triumph for the placebo effect?
So these prescription drugs may not even be that effective; at least, in some cases. With breakthroughs like the Craig Venter team has had, with a bacteria controlled by a man-made, complete collection of genes, we will one day soon maybe, have safer more specific drugs that make all this a moot point. Or, maybe something better than drugs. Ending all this nonsense. Think about all the money that will be saved not spending it on drugs, law enforcement related to drug abuse and the War on Drugs ridiculous pursuits of citizens minding their own business. But for now, well, its not.
Also, how long a drug takes to produce its different effects, is often different for each effect. The side-effects may hit immediately and the main effect only develop after several weeks! Most anti-depressants reach the brain quickly, but take several weeks to have an anti-depressant effect. Let's not even get into here how anti-depressants can lead to suicide. Suicide?
Marijuana? Its cheap, or free, unless you buy outright and don't grow it yourself. Relief? Instant. It wears off soon. Its not harsh to the system, esp., depending on how it is administered. It has no effect like Alcohol or cocaine. Two drugs that have many similar affects like numbness, anxiety, paranoia, even violent behavior; ask any cop on a late Saturday night, if he'd rather deal with a pot-head, or a coked up partier or a drunk).
So. What IS the deal? Why IS this such a big deal?
Who, is getting rich off this deal? And I don't just mean in the way of money, but in resources for government offices and departments who are given license (sometimes too much so) to deal with it. We don't even need to get into the racial aspects of how many ethnic people are in jail due only to marijuana charges; or simply how many in our jails are there for marijuana charges, non violent crimes and put in with violent criminals, leading them to more serious crimes once they are realized. In some cases, we are creating our own worse problems.
This all seems to bring us back around to the "War on Drugs"; doesn't it? This "War" concept, really, that needs to be rooted out of our government and our mentality. Its certainly about time.
So, let's get back to the basics.
The PTSD suffers. I don't advocate giving them whatever they want. I remember the opium or Heroin that Vietnam soldiers got into and what a nightmare that was. But marijuana is not a gateway drug. That argument indicates milk as the culprit. Look it up. All heroin uses once took milk as a child.
These heroes of wars we sent them to, aren't asking for narcotics. And Pot, my friends, is not a narcotic; its just labeled as such by the government. Ask any doctor for a clinical or technical description and they will say calling it a narcotic is ludicrous and at very least, totally inaccurate. Just because you give something a name, does that really make it what it whatever you want to call it?
Let's call a rose a rose and be done with it.
In the end, let's stop thinking about our incorrect historical understandings and consider these people as people. Let's look at things with a critical mind. Look around the world and see what actually is and go forth with that in mind.
Stop being the problem and start being part of the solution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)